In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 392 and 34 IPC (Section 395 IPC added later) after verifying a affidavit confirming a voluntary compromise between the parties.
FIR No. 71 dated 21.2.2010 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4323 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4323 of 2011 Date of decision:- 14.02.2011
Sohan Lal @ Moni and others
...Petitioners
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Ms. Shelly Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 71 dated 21.2.2010 under Section 392 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (Section 395 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) on the basis of compromise (Annexure P- 2).
Respondent No.2-Sant Ram appeared through counsel and filed his reply by way of short affidavit dated 10.2.2011 admitting the factum of compromise and stating that due to intervention of respectable and relatives, the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and now he is having no objection if the FIR in question with consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua petitioners. The compromise is voluntarily and without any pressure. As per compromise (Annexure P-2), both the parties have settled the
Criminal Misc. No. M- 4323 of 2011
-2-
dispute amicably as per the conditions recorded in the compromise. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-2) annexed with the petition.
In appropriate cases FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are not compoundable. It was so held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052 .
Hence, in view of affidavit of respondent No.2-Sant Ram dated 10.2.2011 and in the interest of harmonious relations between the parties, the present petition is accepted and FIR No. 71 dated 21.2.2010 under Section 392 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (Section 395 IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh, is quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
February 14, 2011 Vijay Asija
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 392 and 34 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise in the interest of parties.
Whether the court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings following a compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwinder Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶20
Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sohan Lal @ Moni and others
U.T. Chandigarh
Sant Ram
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
